On Thu, Oct 25 2018, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Theodore Y. Ts'o <ty...@mit.edu>: >> On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 03:39:01PM -0400, Eric S. Raymond wrote: >> > Under Jacobsen vs. Katzer (535 f 3d 1373 fed cir 2008) authors of >> > GPLed software have a specific right to relief (including injunctive >> > relief) against misappropriation of their software. That ruling (which >> > was the case of first impression on the binding status of the GPL) >> > reputational damage is *specifically* recognized as grounds for relief. >> >> I've read the legal briefs, and I'm pretty sure they don't say what >> you are claiming they say. Yes, I'm not a lawyer --- but that's OK >> --- neither are you. > > How much are you willing to gamble on not being wrong? > >> The *vast* majority of the "anti-CoC dissidents" who have been >> advancing this argument, have, as near as I can tell, little or no >> copyright ownership in the kernel. > > I do not have any facts with which to dispute this specific claim. > However, I do notice that a significant number of long-time > contributors have put themselves in the anti-CoC camp. I note Al Viro > as a recent example.
I think you are blurring two groups here. Ted describes "anti-CoC dissidents" as people who are advancing an argument about rescinding their license. This is a smaller groups than the "ant-CoC camp" who don't really like the CoC. I suspect is it is a much smaller group when restricting to actual copyright holders. I am against the CoC as it stands, but rescinding any license is such an enormous over-reaction, I find the concept laughable. NeilBrown > > Even supposing you are right about most of the anti-Coc people being > outsiders, a tiny minority of people with a genuine IP stake could do a > lot of damage. I ask again: how much are you willing to gamble on not > being wrong? > > I definitely do not want to see the kind of explosion we could witness. > I think you are making it more likely rather than less by appearing > high-handed and dismissive. Because, whatever the merits of the > CoC itself, there has been a process failure here. It doesn't look > good to be defending that failure. > > A change like the CoC adoption was not a good thing to do without > proper public notice, discussion, and consensus-building *beforehand*. > This was an unforced error on the part of the leadership group; > please, *please* don't compound it by digging in around the error. Do > you really think you're going to win hearts and minds among insider > dissidents - people with a genuine stake - by dismissing the > opposition as a troll job? > > Instead of declaiming about "trolls", how about we fix the process > failure instead? > -- > <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/">Eric S. Raymond</a> > > My work is funded by the Internet Civil Engineering Institute: > https://icei.org > Please visit their site and donate: the civilization you save might be your > own.
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature